4 ms·

Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of NY, discussed this on his podcast recently. He basically pointed out that there wasn't evidence

Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of NY, discussed this on his podcast recently. He basically pointed out that there wasn't evidence to support the notion that individuals had the intention of committing a crime, which is what prosecutors need. It's aggravating because I see similarities in other ways that the law falls short (Equifax, Sony, etc.) Acting stupidly or neglectfully in these scenarios just doesn't seem to have consequences beyond the damage of data exposure, market collapse, etc. as long as you can argue that you weren't aware that you were doing anything wrong. So how do we properly deal with people that don't willingly commit crime but are so bad at what they do that the damage can be catastrophic?

sitkack 9y ago
It is still gross financial negligence, when you build a house of cards and rent out all the rooms, you are responsible for the ensuing collapse even if it isn't want you intended.
graedus 9y ago
IANAL My understanding is that proof of intent to break the law is not the legal standard needed to move forward with prosecution[0]. It's being used as cover for insufficient political will to prosecute a powerful protected class - Wall Street executives. https://www.leagle.com/decision/199634380f3d2631296 https://www.leagle.com/decision/199634380f3d2631296 § II A
- tomalpha 9y ago
  IANAL too, but believe that in common law systems like the U.K. and most of the U.S. that intent is required. In the jargon: Mens Rea is required in addition to Actus Rea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea That isn’t always true for certain laws that create “strict liability” which removes the requirement to prove intent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
revelation 9y ago
That's why the legal barrier to a search warrant is only "probable cause". No one is expecting that prosecutors can prove all elements of a crime by reading a bunch of public material. So how many executives have had their "no-knock" raid?

sitkack 9y ago

It is still gross financial negligence, when you build a house of cards and rent out all the rooms, you are responsible for the ensuing collapse even if it isn't want you intended.

graedus 9y ago

IANAL My understanding is that proof of intent to break the law is not the legal standard needed to move forward with prosecution[0]. It's being used as cover for insufficient political will to prosecute a powerful protected class - Wall Street executives. https://www.leagle.com/decision/199634380f3d2631296 https://www.leagle.com/decision/199634380f3d2631296 § II A

tomalpha 9y ago
IANAL too, but believe that in common law systems like the U.K. and most of the U.S. that intent is required. In the jargon: Mens Rea is required in addition to Actus Rea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea That isn’t always true for certain laws that create “strict liability” which removes the requirement to prove intent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

revelation 9y ago

That's why the legal barrier to a search warrant is only "probable cause". No one is expecting that prosecutors can prove all elements of a crime by reading a bunch of public material. So how many executives have had their "no-knock" raid?